![At 3-33 on 9th oct, some children Playing inside Aayin Camp Benue [Photo Credit Popoola Ademola Premium Timesv]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2026/03/WhatsApp-Image-2026-03-07-at-05.54.10.jpeg?resize=360%2C180&ssl=1)
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday admitted in evidence a video clip showing Nigeria’s newly appointed ambassador awaiting deployment, Reno Omokri, calling President Bola Tinubu a “drug lord”.
Judge Mohammed Umar admitted the video clip alongside another one presented by the defence team in Mr Sowore’s trial on cybercrime charges, which stemmed from his August 2025 social media posts calling Mr Tinubu a criminal.
|
|
Mr Sowore faces two cybercrime charges over his posts on Facebook and X in August 2025 calling Mr Tinubu a criminal. The charges alleged that Mr Sowore’s posts were designed to cause a breakdown of law and order in the country and to tarnish the personality and reputation of President Tinubu.
The activist’s defence team presented two video clips, both of which centred on Mr Omokri’s comments regarding Mr Tinubu, during the cross-examination of the prosecution’s first witness, Cyril Nosike, on Tuesday.
|
|
|---|
The first video clip, recorded in the lead-up to the 2023 presidential election during which Mr Omokri fiercely opposed Mr Tinubu, then presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, was played in the open court on Tuesday.
Vanguard newspaper reported that the clip showed Mr Omokri in a 2023 interview on ARISE News, boastingly saying he had documentary evidence to support his claim that Mr Tinubu was a “drug lord.”
“Drug lord is not an unprintable name. Bola Tinubu is a known drug lord. I’ve got documents to back it up. I spent my money, went to Chicago, went to court, and got certified true copies. Bola Tinubu is a drug lord,” Mr Omokri said in the clip.
The other video clip also tendered by the defence and admitted by the court in evidence showed Mr Omokri vowing never to work with President Tinubu.
Cross-examination questions and answers
Mr Abubakar asked the prosecution witness if SSS conducted security and background checks on individuals nominated for sensitive positions such as ambassadors, ministers, and judges, as part of its duties. But Mr Nosike said he was not aware if that was part of his agency’s responsibilities.
Sahara Reporters reported that the lawyer further asked the witness if SSS cleared Mr Omokri, who was a presidential aide to former President Goodluck Jonathan, for an ambassadorial nomination despite calling President Tinubu an “international drug baron.”
Mr Nosike stated that he could not explain the reason for Mr Omokri’s clearance.
The witness was also asked about a public statement by President Tinubu giving commitments to protect the constitutional right of any Nigerian who insulted, abused, or called him names.
Sahara Reporters, owned by Mr Sowore, reported that the witness gave no definitive response.
The lawyer further asked the witness why SSS went on to charge Mr Sowore when the president had publicly committed to protecting free speech rights under the Constitution.
The defence lawyer also asked the witness if SSS interviewed Mr Tinubu or obtained a statement from him regarding the alleged impact of Mr Sowore’s posts on his image.
Mr Nosike answered in the negative.
He also said he did not record the video of Mr Tinubu’s speech in Brazil where the president made the remarks to which Mr Sowore responded. He said he did not know who recorded the video.
The witness said he could not confirm if Mr Tinubu was aware of Mr Sowore’s social media post.
Mr Nosike began his testimony on Thursday (22 January), narrating how he came across Mr Sowore’s social media posts on 26 August 2025. He also tendered a series of exhibits, including copies of the defendant’s social media posts and video recording of Mr Tinubu in Brazil when he made the comment to which the activist reacted.
The exhibits
The defence lawyer tendered a flash drive containing several video clips featuring Mr Omokri.
One of the videos showed Mr Omokri, then a fiery critic of Mr Tinubu, calling the future president a drug lord and the other showing him vow not to ever work with Mr Tinubu.
Prosecution lawyer Akinlolu Kehinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, opposed the admissibility of the video clips.
He said the defence was “playing to the gallery” and that the cross-examination questions asked were unnecessary.
He further opposed the admissibility of the video evidence on the grounds that the individual who produced the videos was not listed as a witness and therefore could not tender them in court.
According to Sahara Reporters, Mr Kehinde urged the court to reject the evidence, cautioning against what he described as an attempt to “smuggle” the videos into the proceedings.
But the judge, Mr Umar, after briefly reviewing the arguments, admitted the clips as exhibits.
The judge adjourned the trial until 4 February for continuation of cross-examination of the prosecution witness.
Mr Omokri was one of President Tinubu’s 64 ambassadorial nominees confirmed by the Senate in December 2025.
Less than three years before then, Mr Omokri was all over the place campaigning fiercely against Mr Tinugu’s election as president, calling him a drug baron.
Mr Omokri’s assertion then was based on a verified complaint and accompanying affidavit, filed in the Northern District of Illinois by the United States Department of Justice on 26 July 1993.
The documents sought the civil forfeiture of Mr Tinubu’s funds held by First Heritage Bank allegedly connected to the drug trafficking investigation.
The accompanying affidavit confirmed that “there is probable cause to believe that funds in certain bank accounts controlled by Bola Tinubu were involved in financial transactions” in violation of US laws “and represent proceeds of drug trafficking.”
Charges
The Nigerian government re-arraigned Mr Sowore on amended two counts on 19 January.
It said Mr Sowore’s posts were designed cause a breakdown of law and order in the country, especially among individuals who hold divergent views on President Tinubu’s personality.
It also alleged that the publications were intended to tarnish the personality and reputation of President Tinubu.
According to the prosecution, the defendants committed the offences contrary to and punishable under Section 24(1) (b) and 24(2) (a), (b), and (c) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
The prosecution originally filed five counts against Mr Sowore alongside the parent companies of X and Facebook – the platform on which the activist shared the controversial post.
READ ALSO: Cybercrime Trial: SSS tenders Sowore’s post calling Tinubu criminal as exhibit, plays video evidence
The trio of Mr Sowore, Meta (parent company of Facebook) and X Inc. (parent company of X) were arraigned on 2 December 2025. They pleaded not guilty to all five counts and Mr Sowore was granted bail by the judge.
However, on 19 January, the prosecution re-arraigned only Mr Sowore, following an amendment to the charges.
The amendment, filed on 5 December 2025, saw the two tech companies removed from the cybercrime charges as co-defendants and a reduction in the number of counts from five to two.
The charges centred on Mr Sowore’s post, which read, ‘This criminal @officialABAT actually went to Brazil to state that there is NO MORE corruption under his regime in Nigeria. What audacity to lie shamelessly!’
Mr Sowore’s posts shared on X and Facebook followed President Tinubu’s claim during an official visit to Brazil, that his administration had successfully tackled corruption in Nigeria.
SSS wrote to Mr Sowore asking him to delete the posts, but he refused, describing the letter from the secret police organisation an attempt to muzzle him.
The agency also wrote to X and Facebook to ban Mr Sowore’s account, but the request was not acted on.
PREMIUM TIMES reported long before X and Facebook were dropped from the trial days ago that the case filed by the prosecution disclosed no offence committed by the tech companies.
